OK. SO they worked to kill the Wright story because it would damage Obama and Obama's religion isn't newsworthy.
OK. But then McCain picked Palin and Journolist discussed how to discredit her. Among the ideas they floated out there - 1. It's irresponsible for a mother to work when she had a baby with Downs (can you say SEXIST?)
Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin’s choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.
“Her decision to keep the Down’s baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think,” Donmoyer wrote.
Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”
2. Her religion - so Palin's religous beliefs should be examined, but not Obama's.
Ed Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist blog, argued that journalists and others trying to help the Obama campaign should focus on Palin’s beliefs. “The criticism of her really, really needs to be ideological, not just about experience. If we concede she’s a ‘maverick,’ we will have done John McCain an enormous service. And let’s don’t concede the claim that [Hillary Clinton] supporters are likely to be very attracted to her,” Kilgore said.
3. That picking Palin was a sign of the GOP's sexism.
Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel take: “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”
Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.
Another writer from Mother Jones, Nick Baumann, had this idea: “Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’.”
Notice all of those stories became common narratives during the election. Journolist members congratulated one another on using these talking points and successfully turning the perception on Palin. I'm not saying that these POVs shouldn't be explored or saying that our reporters can't have a bias (we all do, it's human) - but it is so wrong for our media to get together and decide as a group how stories should be slanted, positioned, or killed to press forward a political ideology or any kind.
The Journolist archives are being gone through now. It will not surprise me to learn to that the same unified narrative was created on Journolist to marginalize and control how people see the Tea Party, too.
So although you only know me in the Tea Party...I see the internal conversations that happen within the Tea Party groups. The conversations in Yahoo groups and the like. Which could easily be seen and printed elsewhere. So if they are so racist, why isn't proof, in the form of internal, private conversations of members, being brought forward? Because it just isn't there. When a wack-job White Power person butts in they are booted and everyone pig piles on them. They are not allowed at our rallies. They keep showing up because people they are told (like you) over and over that we welcome racists. So I guess you have to look at everything and make up your own mind. And ask a few questions.
Why is there such a difference between how the Tea Party is portrayed and the person that you know who is a part of it?
Is it possible, in light of the wonderful stuff coming out of Journolist, that public opinion is being purposefully shaped by some big players in the media?
Is the Tea Party just a another slice of Amercia - with as few and as many wonderful people and shitty people as anywhere else?
Heh. This was long. Mostly I'm just venting. *shrug*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
part 2
Date: 2010-07-22 04:56 pm (UTC)OK. But then McCain picked Palin and Journolist discussed how to discredit her. Among the ideas they floated out there -
1. It's irresponsible for a mother to work when she had a baby with Downs (can you say SEXIST?)
Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin’s choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.
“Her decision to keep the Down’s baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think,” Donmoyer wrote.
Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”
2. Her religion - so Palin's religous beliefs should be examined, but not Obama's.
Ed Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist blog, argued that journalists and others trying to help the Obama campaign should focus on Palin’s beliefs. “The criticism of her really, really needs to be ideological, not just about experience. If we concede she’s a ‘maverick,’ we will have done John McCain an enormous service. And let’s don’t concede the claim that [Hillary Clinton] supporters are likely to be very attracted to her,” Kilgore said.
3. That picking Palin was a sign of the GOP's sexism.
Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel take: “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”
Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.
Another writer from Mother Jones, Nick Baumann, had this idea: “Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’.”
Notice all of those stories became common narratives during the election. Journolist members congratulated one another on using these talking points and successfully turning the perception on Palin. I'm not saying that these POVs shouldn't be explored or saying that our reporters can't have a bias (we all do, it's human) - but it is so wrong for our media to get together and decide as a group how stories should be slanted, positioned, or killed to press forward a political ideology or any kind.
The Journolist archives are being gone through now. It will not surprise me to learn to that the same unified narrative was created on Journolist to marginalize and control how people see the Tea Party, too.
So although you only know me in the Tea Party...I see the internal conversations that happen within the Tea Party groups. The conversations in Yahoo groups and the like. Which could easily be seen and printed elsewhere. So if they are so racist, why isn't proof, in the form of internal, private conversations of members, being brought forward? Because it just isn't there. When a wack-job White Power person butts in they are booted and everyone pig piles on them. They are not allowed at our rallies. They keep showing up because people they are told (like you) over and over that we welcome racists. So I guess you have to look at everything and make up your own mind. And ask a few questions.
Why is there such a difference between how the Tea Party is portrayed and the person that you know who is a part of it?
Is it possible, in light of the wonderful stuff coming out of Journolist, that public opinion is being purposefully shaped by some big players in the media?
Is the Tea Party just a another slice of Amercia - with as few and as many wonderful people and shitty people as anywhere else?
Heh. This was long. Mostly I'm just venting. *shrug*